Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open (Dec 2023)

Development and validation of a machine learning-supported strategy of patient selection for osteoarthritis clinical trials: the IMI-APPROACH study

  • Paweł Widera,
  • Paco M.J. Welsing,
  • Samuel O. Danso,
  • Sjaak Peelen,
  • Margreet Kloppenburg,
  • Marieke Loef,
  • Anne C. Marijnissen,
  • Eefje M. van Helvoort,
  • Francisco J. Blanco,
  • Joana Magalhães,
  • Francis Berenbaum,
  • Ida K. Haugen,
  • Anne-Christine Bay-Jensen,
  • Ali Mobasheri,
  • Christoph Ladel,
  • John Loughlin,
  • Floris P.J.G. Lafeber,
  • Agnès Lalande,
  • Jonathan Larkin,
  • Harrie Weinans,
  • Jaume Bacardit

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 5, no. 4
p. 100406

Abstract

Read online

Objectives: To efficiently assess the disease-modifying potential of new osteoarthritis treatments, clinical trials need progression-enriched patient populations. To assess whether the application of machine learning results in patient selection enrichment, we developed a machine learning recruitment strategy targeting progressive patients and validated it in the IMI-APPROACH knee osteoarthritis prospective study. Design: We designed a two-stage recruitment process supported by machine learning models trained to rank candidates by the likelihood of progression. First stage models used data from pre-existing cohorts to select patients for a screening visit. The second stage model used screening data to inform the final inclusion. The effectiveness of this process was evaluated using the actual 24-month progression. Results: From 3500 candidate patients, 433 with knee osteoarthritis were screened, 297 were enrolled, and 247 completed the 2-year follow-up visit. We observed progression related to pain (P, 30%), structure (S, 13%), and combined pain and structure (P ​+ ​S, 5%), and a proportion of non-progressors (N, 52%) ∼15% lower vs an unenriched population. Our model predicted these outcomes with AUC of 0.86 [95% CI, 0.81–0.90] for pain-related progression and AUC of 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52–0.70] for structure-related progression. Progressors were ranked higher than non-progressors for P ​+ ​S (median rank 65 vs 143, AUC = 0.75), P (median rank 77 vs 143, AUC = 0.71), and S patients (median rank 107 vs 143, AUC = 0.57). Conclusions: The machine learning-supported recruitment resulted in enriched selection of progressive patients. Further research is needed to improve structural progression prediction and assess this strategy in an interventional trial.

Keywords